Let's get the convo back on track a little. The author wasn't trying to dismiss anything; he was simply describing what neocons and paleocons agree on. It seems pretty clear from the context that he was referring to rationalism of the pure sort. You had imputed to him more than what he was saying, by any natural reading of what he was saying, and I was trying to point that fact out to you.
In politics, when you stop listening to the head, the thing that generally speaks up in its place is appetite - consider the modern liberal. Besides, there hasn't been a politician, theorist, or theory yet that deserves leaps of faith. "Trust us - we know what's good for you and yours" is a rather risky place to suspend the use of reason and experience....
Speaking of "defining for yourself the philosophy you wish to dismiss." Nothing in your paragraph referred to the point I was making. There's no reason to think that the only two choices of anatomical sources of political ideas are the head and the stomach. Nor was I saying that people should listen to a politician who says "Just trust me." (I'm about the last person on this board who'd argue that) My point, very simply, is that when deciding the political issues of the day, people need to consult their own innate sense of morality and ethics - in addition, of course, to consulting reason and experience.
The author wasn't trying to dismiss anything; he was simply describing what neocons and paleocons agree on. It seems pretty clear from the context that he was referring to rationalism of the pure sort.
And what I'm saying is that he's abused the notion of "rationalism" by either accidentally or purposefully keeping it narrowly defined. Or not - it may seem clear to you, but it's rather opaque what he means by "rationalism" from where I'm sitting. I happen to think of myself as fairly conservative, while also managing to recognize that the notion of "rationalism" encompasses much more than what neos and paleos purportedly agree on. Apparently that puts me out of the running entirely, since now neither neos or paleos will have me as a result, but there you go ;)
Speaking of "defining for yourself the philosophy you wish to dismiss." Nothing in your paragraph referred to the point I was making.
Sure it did - my point was simply that if one is going to listen to that "still, small voice from within" in matters political, it would be wise to know who is speaking.
There's no reason to think that the only two choices of anatomical sources of political ideas are the head and the stomach.
Or, more specifically, what I mean to suggest is that people are remarkably adept at rationalizing the things they want as being in the service of some higher good - hence the suggestion that one should take care to insure that one's sense of ethics is not being perverted by selfish desires. I suppose this will come back around again to our old dispute of whether morality and ethics comes from within or without - if it comes from...elsewhere, then listening to that innate sense is entirely appropriate. If not, then that innate sense is nothing more that reason and experience again, I think - whether in service of good or bad should be examined closely, though.
Nor was I saying that people should listen to a politician who says "Just trust me." (I'm about the last person on this board who'd argue that)
Nor did I intend to intimate that you do. I made that point trusting that you and I would be able to agree on it. Sigh ;)